This past December President Obama signed "Microbead-Free Waters Act of 2015." This act was created as a way to cut down plastic, specifically microplastic, pollution in waterways. The plan of action for the bill is to stop producing cosmetic products that contain microbeads by July of 2017 and to have all those products off stores' shelves by July of 2019. The "Microbead-Free Waters Act of 2015" defines a microbead as any plastic particle that is smaller than five millimeters. Microbeads are popularly used in products such as toothpastes, lotions and face washes as exfoliating agents that are easily rinsed down the drain. Unfortunately, even though microbeads are user friendly, they have caused a myriad of environmental issues. While some see the "Microbead-Free Waters Act" as a step in the right direction there are bigger issues at hand regarding microplastic pollution. Microbeads are an exclusive subgroup of overall microplastic pollution.         

According to research conducted by the 5Gyres Organization there are around 5.25 trillion pieces of plastic floating around in the oceans, of that 92% are microplastics. The 4.83 trillion pieces of microplastics are a combination of microbeads from cosmetic products, pieces of synthetic material that had been shed from clothing in the wash and most popularly broken down pieces of large plastic items. In regards to the microbeads and clothing fibers they end up in oceans, lakes and streams, because water treatment plants do not have the capabilities to withhold these tiny particles from their filters. As for microplastics that are formed from broken down pieces of larger plastics, they result from the inability for plastic to degrade. Instead of decomposing like natural materials they just divide and turn into smaller and smaller pieces of plastic, microplastics. The destiny of microplastics will lead them to sit and soak up toxins due to their structure and may also wind up in the stomach of an unsuspecting organism and enter the food chain. Better procedures must be in place in order to end this pollution.

This paper will argue why the "Microbead-Free Waters Act of 2015" is merely a dent in the chasm that is microplastic pollution and how more efforts must be made not only by the government but also by consumers. The discussion will surround how one of the major issues surrounding microplastics are the different polymers used to make plastic (polyethylene and polypropylene); they absorb toxins such as DDT and PCB that are still found in coastal areas. Sadly, marine organism fish mistake these contaminated microplastics for food. As a result the entire food chain, which includes humans, become exposed to these dangerous chemicals. According to scientists the results of this exposure includes defects to DNA and endocrine systems. Even if a microbead is not consumed, it will spend the rest of its days a toxic physical pollutant either on the sea or lake floor or in the sand on the beach.

Annotated Bibliography


This source discusses the woes of microbeads in beauty products and applauds the (then) recent ban passed in Illinois that would ban microbeads in cosmetics. The article addresses research done by the 5Gyres organization exposing microplastic pollution in the Great Lakes that made Illinois law makers decide to create legislation against microbeads. Julie Beck, a senior associate editor for The Atlantic, wrote this article back in 2014, a year before the "Microbead-Free Waters Act" was introduced. This article will be used as a background source in my paper because it explains local legislation that inspired a national ban.


The main focus of this article is to raise awareness about plastic pollution. The authors note that microplastic pollution comes from two sources; broken down particles from larger items such as rope, clothing, etcetera and from microbead found in cleansing products. This somewhat outdated article was published back in 2007 and foresaw what is now the major issue of microplastic pollution. Bias in this article is a result of the lack of information and studies available at the time of publication. This article would act as a background source for a research paper due to its basic information. 


Tiny fibers are unknowingly coming off of clothes in the wash are hazardous. When clothes are put in washing machines strands small than a millimeter are shed and wind up going down the drain. The biggest damage caused by the microplastic fibers is their potential to enter human lungs, guts, or bloodstream. These fibers are also just a general plastic pollutant, however, they are less commonly thought of because of their small size. This article could be used, as an exhibit source because it presents information and no argument. Bias may be a result of the fact that the article discusses only one type of microplastic.


Microbeads have shown to have a negative affect on the environment. However, research on them new and this article argues that the government should be making policies against other harmful pollutants before continuing with bans against microbeads. Synthetic particles that are polluting the environment are also in clothing and other goods. A PhD in Natural Resources wrote the article as a letter to the editor of the journal. There is a disclaimer claiming that the author received no funding for the article thus bias can result from his personal views. This article is purely argumentative and would be used as support to a counter argument to why the microbead ban holds great importance. 

Fish mistake microbeads for food and scientists are trying to discover the long-term affects of the ingestion of microbeads. They sought out whether or not it is the consumer or water treatment plants that should be held responsible for their practices resulting in the effluence of microbeads in waterways. The author uses scientific evidence to support her claims and create her ethos. Bias in this article is a result of what sources the author has used in her paper and those she may have excluded from her research. In this article would act as an argument in support of the ban of microbeads due to water treatment plants inability to keep them out of waterways. 


This article addresses three issues; microbeads' appearance in the Great Lakes, fish mistaking them for food thus entering the food chain and, how state governments surrounding the Great Lakes have addressed these concerns with local legislation. This article was written over a year to the national ban on microbeads. NPR is a reputable source however bias arises from the specific focus of the Great Lakes; it may be inappropriate to extrapolate this information further to oceans and other waterways.  This would be used as an exhibit source because of its specific example of the Great Lakes.

Over a four-year period (2007-2013), scientists went on twenty-four expeditions to the five gyres of the world's ocean to conduct experiments to figure out how much plastic pollution there is in the water. Through their findings they estimate that there is at least 5.25 trillion plastic particles weighing 268,940 tons. The purpose of this article is to spread awareness of their findings. This article was published fairly recently, back in 2014. Bias may arise from any errors made while scientists collected date. This would be used as an exhibit source because it provides evidence and information about overall plastic pollution. 


This video discusses how the 5Gyres Organization, its scientists as well as other environmental scientists, have been going on expeditions to discover how much plastic is actually in the oceans. Along with sharing their findings, they discuss solutions to the plastic pollution problem as well as mentioning why plastic pollution is bad. The three solutions that were noted are: more public education and litter laws, improve global waste management and finally, corporate/producer responsibility. Bias from this video may result from the fact that the organization that made it is against plastic pollution. This source is an argument in support of my exigence. 


This article provides a surface level background of the "Microbead-Free Waters Act." The author addresses the environmental strain that microbeads have caused because of their entry into waterways. The purpose of the article is to be accessible general public and easy to understand. This article was published just two months ago, just a few days after the bill was signed by President Obama. Bias from this article can arise from a possible lack of knowledge on behalf of the author; a journalist wrote this piece as opposed to a scientist who would be more familiar with the subject matter. This article provides basic facts and work well as a background source in a research paper.


This informational article addresses popular concerns regarding the national microbead ban. Danny Lewis, the journalist who wrote this story, discusses issues such as what this ban means for consumers, why Congress decided this ban was necessary and what the effects of microbeads have been on the planet. This article was published just weeks prior to Obama officially signing the "Microbead-Free Waters Act" into law. Bias in this article may come from the author's knowledge on this particular subject matter since he is not a scientist or environmentalist.

Lush Cosmetics (who do not use microbeads in their products) teamed up with the scientists at 5Gyres to find out what microbeads are all about. They discovered that these plastics are coming from wash off cosmetic products and are winding up in waterways. Not only are they a physical pollutant but they also absorb DDTs and PCBs and animals are mistakenly eating them. This video was released two months after the bill banning microbeads was introduced to Congress. The scientists are 5Gyres are focused on ending plastic pollution and bias could be a result of this. This video would act as a background source given the fact that it gives background on the information.

This article address how plastic resin pellets, used as a raw material in the plastic industry, is entering waterways causing adverse affects. These pellets are anywhere from 0.1 to 0.5 centimeters in diameter, very similar to the size of microbeads found in cosmetics products. Unlike microbeads however, these plastic resin pellets were not included in the "Microbead-Free Waters Act." This article is definitely very old, it was published back in 2001, however I think it provides great examples of how minimal the "Microbead-Free Waters Act" is. Bias may be a result of the age of this article.

The "Microbead-Free Waters Act of 2015" was passed in late December of 2015. Its course of action is to halt the production of rinse off cosmetic products containing plastic microbeads by 2017 and the sale of such products will be banned come 2019. This bipartisan bill is looking to improve the environment by eliminating plastic microbead pollution. This source is credible because it is the direct text of the new law. Bias may result from the diction choosen for the bill. This source will be used as a major background source.


Scientists estimate that 808 trillion plastic microbeads are washed down United States' drains daily and 8 trillion of those beads and winding up in waterways. Popular brands have already taken a stand against using the plastic particles in their rinse-off products such as Johnson & Johnson, L'Oreal, and Colgate. This article was written by a plethora of scientists from different institutions in 2015. Bias in this article comes from the united stance taken against microbeads. This article would be used as an exhibit because it provides examples of which companies have decided to go against microbeads and why.


This article provides an overview of the problem that is plastic pollution. One of the things that the article discusses is what a gyre is and its relation to marine pollution. This article is meant to be short and information. As a result, bias may come from the brevity. Unfortunately, there is no publication date on the article. However, being that it is a website that gets updated regularly by a well-regarded organization, making it credible. This source would be used as an exhibit source because it is chalk-full of facts about plastic pollution.
